Farmer dies after falling from greenhouse roof during ICE raid in California
Jaime Alanis, 57, is the first person to die as a result of Donald Trump's ICE raids.
His niece, Yesenia Duran, posted on the fundraising site GoFundMe to say her uncle was his family's only provider and he had been sending his earnings back to his wife and daughter in Mexico.
The United Food Workers said Mr Alanis had worked on the farm for 10 years.
"These violent and cruel federal actions terrorise American communities, disrupt the American food supply chain, threaten lives and separate families," the union said in a recent statement on X.
The Department of Homeland Security said it executed criminal search warrants at Glass House Farms facilities on Thursday.
Mr Alanis called family to say he was hiding and possibly fleeing agents before he fell around 30ft (9m) from the roof and broke his neck, according to information from family, hospital and government sources.
Agents arrested 200 people suspected of being in the country illegally and identified at least 10 immigrant children on the sites, the DHS said in a statement.
Mr Alanis was not among them, the agency said.
"This man was not in and has not been in CBP or ICE custody," DHS assistant secretary for public affairs Tricia McLaughlin said.
"Although he was not being pursued by law enforcement, this individual climbed up to the roof of a greenhouse and fell 30ft. CBP immediately called a medivac to the scene to get him care as quickly as possible."
Read more:
Four US citizens were arrested during the incident for allegedly "assaulting or resisting officers", the DHS said, and authorities were offering a $50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of a person suspected of firing a gun at federal agents.
In a statement, Glass House, a licensed Cannabis grower, said immigration agents had valid warrants. It said workers were detained and it is helping provide them with legal representation.
"Glass House has never knowingly violated applicable hiring practices and does not and has never employed minors," it added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
44 minutes ago
- Fox News
Officers' unexpected pizza delivery goes viral after holiday traffic stop arrest
A viral video shows a pair of police officers in Arizona helping finish a pizza delivery after the driver was arrested during a traffic stop. "When your GrubHub driver gets arrested… Tempe Police Delivers," the caption on the video read. It was posted on social media by the Tempe Police Department. The department shared the moment, which unfolded on July 4, that showed officers delivering the pizza to a visibly surprised customer. "Hello," the shocked customer said when she opened her door to find two police officers with her pizza order. "How are you doing?" one of the officers asked. "Good. How are you?" she responded. "Very good. Brandy?" the officer holding the pizza asked to verify they had the right home for the delivery. "Yes," she confirmed. "So your GrubHub guy got arrested, so we still delivered your pizza," the officer explained. The customer's mouth dropped open when she realized what was happening. "I really appreciate the pizza," she said. "It still should be warm," the second officer added. The department shared the viral video on their X account as well. "When a delivery driver was arrested during a traffic stop, our officers made sure the pizza still got to the customer. The order was Hot-N-Ready, and the suspect was Caught-N-Steady," the department shared in a post on X. "We're committed to serving our community 24/7—whether it's safety or pizza delivery!" Authorities told Fox News Digital that the delivery driver was arrested on charges of reckless driving and racing. Fox News Digital reached out to GrubHub for comment. Stepheny Price is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business. She covers topics including missing persons, homicides, national crime cases, illegal immigration, and more. Story tips and ideas can be sent to
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A $100 billion mystery is unfolding on tariffs and inflation and economists are cracking the case
Economists have for months warned that tariffs would cause an inflation surge, but as of July, there's little evidence of that in economic data, despite about $100 billion in tariffs already collected by the Treasury. Fortune asked economists to explain why. The possible reasons range from 'it's too soon' to 'consumers won't stand for it.' Since the first weeks of President Donald Trump's second term, when the president signaled a wholesale reimagining of the international trade system on a scale not seen in decades, mainstream economists have warned that prices would surge. The mantra, repeated by everyone from mainstream economists to factions of the GOP, has been clear: A tariff is a tax on consumers. Businesses said the same, with three -quarters of importers in a recent New York Fed study declaring they planned to pass on some tariff costs to customers. But halfway into the year and well into the most consequential reshuffling of trade in half a century, tariff-fueled inflation is missing in action. The tariffs are certainly in place: The Treasury so far has collected a record-setting $100 billion in customs duties, and is on track to pull in $300 billion this year. The tariffs are paid by U.S. importers—think Walmart and other retailers—when goods cross the border into the U.S. It takes some time to work their way into the system, but eventually higher prices get passed onto consumers. Those higher prices directly influence the overall price levels in inflation measures. Except there's a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, and coated in a puzzle. One place tariffs aren't showing up? In the inflation numbers. For four months, official inflation readings from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have come in under expectations, with the latest inflation reading a relatively modest 2.4%. The president's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) this week released a brief arguing that import prices have actually been falling. Why doesn't the data show a tariff hit? Here's what leading economists told Fortune. Though tariffs have been discussed for months, they haven't actually been in place for that long. 'Regarding the impact of tariffs on prices, the timeframe used by the CEA is way too short to draw any definitive conclusions,' said the fiscally conservative National Taxpayers Union said in a critique on the study, which looked at prices through May. 'Trump's 10% nonreciprocal tariffs were only imposed in April.' Tariffs on steel and aluminum went into effect in March and increased in June, while Chinese imports have been subject to a 30% tax since March; dozens more 'reciprocal' tariffs, initially announced in early April, have now been postponed. Meanwhile, official government price data takes time to collect and release. As of mid-July, the most recent data for the Consumer Price Index and Personal Consumption Expenditures deflator, covers May. Immediately after tariffs were announced, importers rushed to bring in goods before they were subject to a higher rate. Businesses brought in so many goods, with no corresponding sales, that it briefly flipped the U.S.' GDP into negative territory. (In economist math, imports count as a negative to GDP.) That surge means that businesses could still be largely selling goods brought in under pre-tariff prices. 'Businesses stockpiled inventory, and presumably haven't had to raise prices on goods because they're sitting on the shelf. Eventually they will, and once they start to raise prices it'll start impacting consumers,' said Eric Winograd, chief U.S. economist at AllianceBernstein, to explain this theory. Uncertainty, in a word, is 'the most important reason' the hard data doesn't yet show tariff impact, according to Eugenio Aleman, chief economist at Raymond James. 'Business owners price their goods at replacement cost. If they have to buy the same good in the future, they have to increase the price [charged to the customer] if the price of the replacement is higher,' he told Fortune. The problem, though, is uncertainty. 'Everybody knows the prices that firms will pay for replacement goods will be higher, but nobody knows by how much. That uncertainty is keeping many firms from repricing their goods.' Businesses, particularly small businesses, could be choosing to eat the cost of tariffs for the time being. Unlike large businesses, they have a smaller client base and could be reluctant to hike prices, Aleman said. 'Maybe small firms are eating some large portion of the tariffs. Why? Because they can't afford to lose clients,' he said. One potential data point indicating this possibility is recent Commerce Department figures showing growth in proprietors' income—a proxy for small businesses—flatlining in May. Aleman stressed that more than one month of data would be needed to determine if this is the case. Recent Bank of America research shows the amount of tariffs paid by small businesses in May nearly doubled from 2022 levels. 'Small businesses may be, in some ways, more susceptible to tariff pressures than larger businesses, given their access to capital is more limited,' the note read. An added factor is the bully pulpit of Truth Social, which Trump has wielded freely at even the largest retailer thinking of hiking costs. 'If the president sees significant pass-through of tariffs via prices, you'll see a lot more public policy, probably via Twitter,' Jeff Klingelhofer, a managing director at Aristotle Pacific, told Fortune. Klingelhofer previously suggested that companies would take the brunt of the tariff impact because they're the only ones who could afford to, with consumers being 'tapped out' after years of high inflation. Former Federal Reserve economist Claudia Sahm also noted that companies today are less quick to hike prices now than they were during pandemic inflation, when Americans were flush with cash and eager to spend it. In 2021 and 2022, 'consumers up and down the income distribution, had some cash, and there were a lot of corporate earnings calls saying 'We're passing these [costs] through,' and the consumer could kind of handle it,' she told Fortune. Three years later, Americans have spent all the excess savings accumulated during Covid, and businesses 'realize if they increase prices dramatically, they could be losing customers,' she said. 'There is more hesitation. There is some raising of prices, but not the exuberance' of the pandemic. That's the position of Mark DiPlacido, policy advisor at American Compass, a conservative economic outfit that supports tariffs as a way to rebalance the U.S. economy. 'Foreign exporters have ended up absorbing a lot of [the costs], and businesses—very little has gotten to consumers at this point,' he said. Japanese carmakers, he noted, are slashing prices—sometimes nearly 20%—to compensate for the added costs U.S. buyers will pay. In other words, 'Japan itself and Japanese companies are eating the costs of the tariffs.' Every economist Fortune spoke with made some version of this point—that a tariff, rather than giving a blank check for a seller to boost prices, sets off a complicated negotiation between importers, exporters, and American end buyers. Finding the balance of which party pays how much will take time, and will be individual for each good and sector of the economy. 'Tariffs are a tax on imported goods,' Sahm said. 'Nobody wants to pay the tax, so who is the weakest link? Walmart can go in and tell their Chinese producers, 'You have to cut the price.' Maybe in the pandemic the consumers said, 'OK, I'll pay it—I'm not really happy about it, but I have the money.' The final answer, she added, 'can be very specific to the business, the industry, and also the general macroeconomic conditions.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
The U.S. and EU Are Fighting Over Who Controls Big Tech
President Trump just slapped 30% tariffs on goods coming from the European Union, escalating a long-simmering conflict over who gets to write the rules for Big Tech. The move came just after Brussels moved forward with more regulations, this time targeting the booming field of artificial intelligence. The latest flashpoint is the EU's new 'Code of Practice' for AI, a set of voluntary guidelines released Thursday aimed at addressing public safety concerns. While not legally binding, the code builds on the EU's landmark AI Act, and companies that don't sign on by the August 2 deadline risk intense regulatory scrutiny. OpenAI announced its intention to sign the code on Friday, while the tech lobby group CCIA, whose members include Google and Meta, has criticized the guidelines. The Trump administration has been openly hostile to the EU's attempts to regulate American tech companies. Trump has described the bloc's hefty fines as 'overseas extortion,' while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed they function as backdoor tariffs. This view has been amplified by Silicon Valley. In a January announcement, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said his company was 'going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies,' specifically calling out European regulators. These tensions have crippled trade negotiations; in May, Trump administration officials told the New York Post that talks had stalled over the EU's refusal to abandon its multi-million dollar fines against U.S. tech giants. Under the 2022 Digital Markets Act (DMA), a landmark European antitrust law, Apple, Google, Amazon, and Meta were all deemed 'gatekeepers.' This designation brought with it a wave of fines and forced changes to their EU operations. Most recently, Meta was hit with a more than $200 million fine after the European Commission found its 'pay-or-consent' model breached the DMA. According to a Reuters report from Friday, Meta has decided to fight the findings and will not propose changes, meaning more fines are likely on the way. Despite Trump's pressure, the EU seems intent on maintaining its regulatory independence. Earlier this month, the European Commission's tech chief, Henna Virkkunen, told Politico that the bloc's rules on digital competition and AI were not up for negotiation. However, the EU has shown some willingness to compromise. The bloc recently dropped a proposed tax on digital companies from its upcoming budget, a move seen as a win for the Trump administration. The question now is whether these new tariffs will backfire and provoke an even tougher crackdown. In response to the first round of tariffs in April, EU President Ursula von der Leyen was open about targeting Big Tech with countermeasures if talks failed. While the bloc delayed a set of retaliatory measures that were set to go into effect this past Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron has made it clear that the EU's most feared weapon is still on the table: the anti-coercion instrument. 'With European unity, it is more than ever up to the Commission to assert the Union's determination to resolutely defend European interests,' Macron wrote on X. 'This implies speeding up the preparation of credible countermeasures, by mobilizing all the instruments at its disposal, including anti-coercion, if no agreement is reached by August 1st.' Along with the President of the European Commission, France shares the same very strong disapproval at the announcement of horizontal 30% tariffs on EU exports to the United States from August 1st. This announcement comes after weeks of intense engagement by the Commission in… — Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) July 12, 2025The anti-coercion instrument is considered the 'bazooka' in the EU's arsenal. While traditional tariffs hit physical goods, this tool allows the EU to impose trade restrictions on services from a country it deems is using economic coercion. If the U.S. is found to fit the bill, American tech giants that provide digital services, like Apple, Google, and Meta, could be uniquely vulnerable. Ultimately, both sides are fighting to protect their own interests: the Trump administration wants to defend American dominance in the global tech industry, while the EU wants to regulate digital platforms on its own terms. As negotiations continue, they will not only decide the fate of the tech companies caught in the middle but will also set the rules for global tech sovereignty for years to come. But for Big Tech companies caught in the crossfire, the message is clear: this is a war over digital sovereignty, and the rules of the internet's next era may be written in Brussels as much as in Washington.
